Church membership declined from 75% → 50%
Premarital sex rate went from from 20% → 75%
Trust in government went from 75% → 20%
Prime-age-male-labor-force nonparticipation rate quadrupled from 3% → 12%
Marijuana use went from 4% → 49%
Your phrase that "none are moral issues" really just means "none of those conflict with whatever morality I hold".
Here is a quote I like from Descartes.
"But I believed that I had already given sufficient time to languages, and likewise to the reading of the writings of the ancients, to their histories and fables. For to hold converse with those of other ages and to travel, are almost the same thing. It is useful to know something of the manners of different nations, that we may be enabled to form a more correct judgment regarding our own, and be prevented from thinking that everything contrary to our customs is ridiculous and irrational, a conclusion usually come to by those whose experience has been limited to their own country."
Wearing pants increased from X% → Y%
Eating pork increased from X% → Y%
Drawing pictures increased from X% → Y%
Reading Harry Potter increased from X% → Y%
Using the stove on Saturday increased from X% → Y%
See? These stats prove morality is in decline!
I'd argue that the conclusion to be drawn is that morality is so subjective that the very idea of a moral decline is nonsense, not that these numbers prove a moral decline. (I actually do think a moral decline is happening, but in my view it's more along the lines of increases in tribalism, factory farming, militarization of police, the industrial prison complex, wealth inequality, etc.)
It might indeed be nonsense to talk about a moral decline with someone who disagrees with the moral values held by oneself. It seems the only productive thing to talk about between two such people would be the reasons they disagree on their values and which values are right, and I'm not sure HN is the best place for those conversations.
So I just felt people who agreed that those original statistics indicated a moral decline and those who disagreed were talking past each other and no discussion of quality would come from it, unless the root disagreement were addressed. Apologies if I spoke out of turn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ("moral anti-realist" == "meta-ethical relativism"?)
> This view contrasts with moral universalism, which argues that, even though well-intentioned persons disagree...there is still a meaningful sense in which an action could be more "moral" (morally preferable) than another
Absolute moral relativism sounds terrible, but I also don't like the idea of being very constrained in my beliefs and actions. I don't think we can truly consider anything other than mathematical constructs to be objective, but I think that there are a few moral values (violence bad, blah blah) that all societies should follow, and everything else is fair game. In effect, there would be a few core principles that all other enforceable moral principles (which are tantamount to laws) are derived from, and everything else is to be judged in the court of society or not at all. There would also be a provision to allow units of organization (homes, businesses) to set reasonable contracts to uphold additional moral values. I think an escape hatch along those lines is most flexible without possibly violating the core values.
I came up with some of that on the spot. Feel free to express (polite!) criticism.
Good, churches are places of fake morality. If your institution sexually abuses minors for decades and you are still a member, it is not those leaving who are morally wrong..
> Premarital sex rate went from from 20% → 75%
Which is bad, because the place of fake morality said it is bad. I am with one girl for 20 years now and will never marry her. I don't see why any institution should have any bussiness in what I do here. I know why they do it tho: Control someone's deepest desires and you own them fully. This is why religions often try to regulate sex: power.
> Trust in government went from 75% → 20%
Might have to do with the fact that more people are literate, that the government has done not much for the small person since that time and we now have Internet. I don't see how "trusting the government" is morally good under any definition of the word.
> Prime-age-male-labor-force nonparticipation rate quadrupled from 3% → 12%
Can have a ton of reasons, e.g. that a typical today job will not sustain even the most modest of lifestyles, while decades ago you could feed a family from it. But we trust the government so this will all be fixed, right?
> Marijuana use went from 4% → 49%
Why is it morally wrong to smoke weed? What would you bring up next? The precentage of exposed ankles? It is morally wrong to smoke marijuana and drive a car, it is morally wrong to smoke marijuana in front of a kid. But just smoking it for your own pleasure is neutral (and I am a non-smoking person).
and
> [..] they find a marginal trend for people to rate morality worse 40 years before their birth than 20, which doesn’t fit a rose-colored glasses effect but does fit an imprint-on-your-own-birth-year one.
In other words: convincing, but just lies, damn lies, and statistics :-)